8/18/2019 Velez v Atty. de Vera

1/2

#7.  Good Moral Character

  A.C. no. 6697 Velez vs. Atty. De Vera

  SC ENBANC Per Curiam

Facts:  In a Complaint dated 11 April 2005, complainant Zoilo Antonio Velez moved for the suspension and/ordisbarment of respondent Att! "eonard de Vera based on the follo#in$ $rounds%

1& Att! 'e Veras alle$ed misrepresentation in concealin$ the suspension order rendered a$ainsthim b the (tate )ar of California!

2& *hat the respondent, in appropriatin$ for his o#n benefit funds due his client, #as found to haveperformed an act constitutin$ moral turpitude b the +earin$ eferee )ill 'ozier, +earin$'epartment - (an .rancisco, (tate )ar of California in Administrative Case o! 01324!Complainant alle$ed that the respondent #as then forced to resi$n or surrender his license topractice la# in the said state in order to evade the recommended three 6& ear suspension!

 Att! 'e Vera stated in his repl that the issues raised in abovementioned Complaint #ere the ver issuesraised in an earlier administrative case filed b the same complainant a$ainst him! In fact, accordin$ to him, the saidissues #ere alread e7tensivel discussed and cate$oricall ruled upon b the (!C! in its 'ecision dated 'ec! 11,2005 in Administrative Case o! 052 In e% 8etition to 'is9ualif Att! "eonard 'e Vera&! +e praed that theinstant administrative complaint be dismissed follo#in$ the principle of res :udicata!

Complainant maintained that there is substantial evidence sho#in$ respondent;s moral baseness, vilenessand depravit, #hich could be used as a basis for his disbarment! Complainant stressed that the respondent neverdenied that he used his client;s mone! Complainant ar$ued that the respondent failed to present evidence that the(upreme Court of California accepted the latter;s resi$nation and even if such #as accepted, complainant positedthat this should not absolve the respondent from liabilit!

! "?@A' (! '?V?A commited malpractice #/c amounted to moral turpitude inthe (*A*? )A @. CA"I.@IA and is this applicable to the 8hilippines for him to be disbarred!

Held:  >es, there is substantial evidence of malpractice b Att! 'e Vera! (C suspended him for t#o ears!

(ection 2 of ule 16 of our ules of Court states%

Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor. – A member ofthe bar may be disbarred or suspended from his oce as attorney by the Supreme Court forany deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such oce, grossly immoral conduct, orby reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oathhich he is re!uired to ta"e before admission to practice, or for a ilful disobedience of anylaful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or ilfully appearing as an attorney for a partyto a case ithout authority so to do. #he practice of soliciting cases at la for the purpose ofgain, either personally or through paid agents or bro"ers, constitutes malpractice.

8/18/2019 Velez v Atty. de Vera

2/2

 Att! de Vera did not den complainant;s Bulius =illis& alle$ation in the latter;s memorandum that he deVera& received (D12,000!00 intended for his client and that he deposited said amount in his personal account andnot in a separate trust account and that, finall, he spent the amount for personal purposes! Att! 'e Vera insists thatBuliusE father authorized him to use the mone, and has repaed the fullo amount even before the administrativecase #as filed a$ainst him!

+o#ever, aAside from these selfservin$ statements, ho#ever, #e cannot find an#here in the records ofthis case proof that indeed Att! de Vera #as dul authorized to use the funds of his client!

 Att! de Vera cannot rel on the statement made b the hearin$ officer that the elder =illis had indeedtestified that he Fe7pected de Vera mi$ht use the mone for a fe# das!F #as not so much an acGno#led$ment ofconsent to the use b Att! de Vera of his client;s funds as it #as an acceptance of the probabilit that Att! de Verami$ht, indeed, use his client;s funds, #hich b itself did not speaG #ell of the character of Att! de Vera or the #asuch character #as perceived!

CANON 16. A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES O HIS CLIENTTHAT MAY COME TO HIS POSSESSION.

Ru!e 16."1. A !a#$er s%a!! acc&u't (&r a!! )&'e$ &r *r&*ert$ c&!!ected &r recei+ed (&r &r (r&) t%e c!ie't.

Ru!e 16.",. A !a#$er s%a!! -ee* t%e (u'ds &( eac% c!ie't se*arate a'd a*art (r&) %is ' a'd t%&se &(&t%ers -e*t $ %i).

 Att! 'e VeraEs actions caused dishonor, not onl to himself but to the noble profession to #hich he belon$s! .or, itcannot be denied that the respect of liti$ants to the profession is ine7orabl diminished #henever a member of theprofession betras their trust and confidence!